Is Putting Change.gov Under Creative Commons Really A Big Deal?

from the help-me,-I'm-missing-something... dept

Tue, Dec 2nd 2008 1:01pm — Mike Masnick

There's been plenty of attention paid to the news that the website for President-Elect Obama's transition team, Change.gov has been placed under a Creative Commons license, allowing others to make use of the content with attribution. However, I'm a bit hard pressed to see how this actually is a big deal. The whole thing is made a bit odd by the fact that federal government content is not covered by copyright, so anything that comes out of the White House is in the public domain. But, apparently since Obama has not yet been inaugurated, the campaign can still claim copyright on the content. But, why would they? Rather than going with a CC license, why not go all the way and put the content in the public domain? After all, in two months, all such content will be in the public domain anyway? It seems a little odd, counterproductive and unnecessary to add more restrictions to the content than there will be once Obama is actually in office. If the Obama team really wanted to do something meaningful concerning the content on the site, they could follow the advice of Tim O'Reilly and go beyond just putting the content in the public domain and also add revision control, thereby committing to alerting people to any changes to the content. Now, that would be an impressive change.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: change.gov, copyright, creative commons, obama, public domain

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

John Duncan Yoyo, 2 Dec 2008 @ 1:20pm

It only makes sense if they had lots of people asking for permission to use the content and they wanted to avoid having to individually give permission to each and everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wesha, 2 Dec 2008 @ 1:30pm

I don't know about you, but to me, it delivers the message that the future president at least KNOWS what the hell Creative Commons IS, and that's a rather important message to me. I hate old farts who can't tell Kazaa from kazoo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Dec 2008 @ 1:31pm

They want to control the content
Obama has already shown he will not tolerate people that don't agree with him. http://www.drudgereport.com/flashopp.htm He is a socialist by nature so his first inclination is always going to be to control what the media says about him. I could site over 100 examples of this in the campaign but really Techdirt readers already know this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Dec 2008 @ 1:36pm

Re: They want to control the content
Not to say that this hasn't been done before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fred Benenson, 2 Dec 2008 @ 1:43pm

User generated content and CC
Good question Mike.

Putting aside the issue of whether Obama's transition 501(c)4 corporation is entitled to copyright protection, the CC license choice matters for another reason: the general public should have the right to use the work created by citizens that is submitted to the site.

Because Change.gov now requires that all work be licensed under CC's Attribtuion license, it clears the way for the government and other citizens to build upon it without complications.

Instead of creating an onerous one-off Terms of Service forcing users to abdicate exclusive rights to their content, Change.gov simply drew a line in the sand (as Wikipedia and other free culture communities do) and ask users to agree to letting their work be free.

This policy also avoids asking thousands of citizens to relinquish all control over their work to the public domain.

Fred Benenson
Outreach Manager, Creative Commons
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), 2 Dec 2008 @ 2:49pm

Credit where credit is due
Does the pre-campaign information become Public Domain when he takes the whitehouse, or does only any future information become public domain?

I would speculate that the reason they went with CC is that a lot of the people who contributed want their name to get out there, so allowing the use of their work with attribution helps them, by making their name more recognizable. So in 4 years, when its time for another campaign, they can get a job easier with one of the lead dogs.

"Look at me. I helped put Obama in the white house. I can do the same for you."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
meoip, 2 Dec 2008 @ 3:15pm

Tax
You mean I have some right to use what my tax dollars paid for? outstanding!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 2 Dec 2008 @ 3:39pm

Re:
Im with you Wesha. its pretty cool that he, or is team, knows what the heck CC is. that says something in itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles (profile), 2 Dec 2008 @ 3:57pm

Attribution No Derivatives
To me, I'm thinking that they're smart if they do "Attribution No Derivatives". It makes sure that noone will twist their words, therefore defacing them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy, 2 Dec 2008 @ 5:42pm

I'm Surprised You Even Have To Ask The Question
Some of the "restrictions" you mention are pretty damn important for private citizens, such as "5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer" and "6. Limitation on Liability".

Nobody of sound mind and body should be putting anything in the public domain unless they are somehow covered against liability for doing so. Our society is too litigious, and while stock warranty disclaimers are fairly thin as a defense, they're better than nothing.

Given that, the CC-Attribution license has the fewest restrictions of any of the CC licenses, and it's probably better to use a CC license than to whip up yet another license.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2008 @ 6:32pm

Re: They want to control the content
drudgereport - now there is a shining example of unbiased reporting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 2 Dec 2008 @ 6:50pm

Re: I'm Surprised You Even Have To Ask The Question
Some of the "restrictions" you mention are pretty damn important for private citizens, such as "5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer" and "6. Limitation on Liability".

Nobody of sound mind and body should be putting anything in the public domain unless they are somehow covered against liability for doing so. Our society is too litigious, and while stock warranty disclaimers are fairly thin as a defense, they're better than nothing.

What an incredibly sad statement.

No offense, but to me that's the death of the entire reason for public domain works, to claim that putting stuff in the public domain leads to liability. I sincerely hope the world never actually reaches such a ridiculous point. That would truly be a sad state of affairs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 3 Dec 2008 @ 1:07am

Clarification
According to Wikipedia, "[US Government] works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law". Presumably this means that works produced by the US government are still protected by copyright in other countries. Placing Change.gov under a CC license would mean other people around the world are able to use it as well, not just Americans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John (profile), 3 Dec 2008 @ 7:44am

Copyrighted by Default
As mentioned much of the material was not originally created by the federal government. Thus by default under current US copyright law it is copyrighted by default. Applying a CC license to the material simply means that there can be no argument about anyone being able to use the materials. No arguments about what is or isn't fair use, etc.

What this really all means, as mentioned by others, is that there is someone in or working for the new administration that "gets it" when it comes to the modern internet world and economy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 3 Dec 2008 @ 10:42am

Re: They want to control the content
do you have any idea what the creative commons is?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy, 3 Dec 2008 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re: I'm Surprised You Even Have To Ask The Question
to claim that putting stuff in the public domain leads to liability

More accurately, failing to disclaim liability leaves you less protected than if you do disclaim liability. Since public domain offers no means of disclaiming liability (AFAIK), public domain is a riskier proposition than choosing a liberal license that contains warranty disclaimers.

I have had multiple "intellectual property" attorneys tell me as much with respect to public domain software -- you are better served using a liberal license that contains the warranty disclaimer. It won't harm use of the software, and you have at least some measure of protection against liability suits. While I can see greater odds of liability suits with "active" written works like software than ordinary prose, the principle still holds.

If you feel that CC-Attribution is still too restrictive, I encourage you to work with the Creative Commons to cook up a warranty-disclaimer-only license.

I sincerely hope the world never actually reaches such a ridiculous point. That would truly be a sad state of affairs.

Um, we've been there since the invention of copyright and liability. All that's changed are the odds and impacts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]